CNN.com International
The Web    CNN.com      Powered by
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ON TV
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TRANSCRIPTS


 

Return to Transcripts main page

CNN IN THE MONEY

U.S. To Send 500 Strong Security Force With Athletes To Olympics; Is Media Too Polarized? Could Latino Vote Swing Election?

Aired July 25, 2004 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: From New York City, America's financial capitol, this is IN THE MONEY.

JACK CAFFERTY, HOST: Good afternoon and welcome to the program. I'm Jack Cafferty. Coming up today's edition of IN THE MONEY:

Taking sides: Partisan news might make you feel good, but it won't make you get smart, necessarily. See what the rise of polarized media could mean for America.

And Latino leverage: In this tight race, a single group of voters could tip the balance. Find out of Latin-Americans have what it takes.

And the bland leading the bland: Learn to talk sprawl from gridlock to the big box. Get the lingo when we meet the author of "A Field Guide for Sprawl."

Joining me today are a couple of IN THE MONEY veterans. One of my old friends, Susan Lisovicz, CNN correspondent, and here with the permission of "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" is Christine Romans.

And I also used to work with you over there on CNNFN.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, yeah.

CAFFERTY: So we have the Olympic games coming up here in a few weeks. There was a story earlier in the week that the United States has made some of kind of look the other way deal to send 500 armed guards with the athletes and Special Forces troops. There's some question about whether the facilities are going to be ready. There are all kinds of questions about -- you know, the athletes going over there and which ones might be involved in scandals in the papers all the time. It's not shaping up to be a memorable event at this point, is it.

ROMANS: It's at the intersection of a whole bunch of different concerns this time around. I don't know, I mean, there was this big blackout in Athens, how many weeks ago? A couple of weeks ago, and I don't -- it's not -- doesn't sound like the assignment jumping up to take.

SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, what's interesting, because both you and I actually did go to Europe in the last few weeks, there were Americans everywhere. But they're really having a hard time getting inside to Athens. And even the other day I was reading, I think in the "Journal" that the Greek government is encouraging Greeks to buy all the surplus tickets as their patriotic duty. Buy tickets.

CAFFERTY: We got to put people in the seats if we're going to...

ROMANS: Well, I think sponsors are going to the Bahamas to watch it on a big boondoggle

CAFFERTY: Yeah, they're going to watch on TV.

ROMANS: They're not even going to there. Like it's not the normal with the boondoggle with the big boozy -- boozy parties, I think.

(CROSSTALK)

LISOVICZ: ...because this is the birthplace of the modern Olympics.

CAFFERTY: Exactly. And in fairness to the people in Greece, I mean, nobody could be anticipated when the games were awarded to Athens that we were going to have the kind escalation of global terrorism that we've had. So, we wish them well. I hope it works out for them.

They're getting out the balloons, meantime, and streamers and party hats up in Boston where the Democratic Convention kicks off starting tomorrow. So what does John Kerry need to really do to turn heads and change minds among that small group of undivided -- undivided? -- Undecided voters during this national showcase? National Correspondent Bob Franken joins us from Boston now with the latest.

There aren't many out there who haven't made up their mind yet so every word out of either side Bob, is going to be critical in trying to tip the balance the of power among a very few of voters.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well that's true, and off course, the convention definitely regarded as a jumping-off point for that. First thing the democrats are going to have to do is make sure that their message is not obscured by what goes on outside of the Fleet Center with all the security concerns and the demonstrations. So, that's point No. 1 to make sure that somehow this doesn't become another Chicago.

But, once they get past that, what they have to do is to try and overturn the democratic tradition. Will Rogers once said, "I'm not the member of an organized political party, I'm a democrat," but the democrats seem united in one thing this year and that is their antagonism toward the sitting president, George W. Bush. So, John Kerry and John Edwards have to continue to try to exploit that and get and get a cohesive force to run against republicans who are also just as cohesive. CAFFERTY: Hey you know, you talk about you hope they keep things together up there, but you mentioned, it's Democratic Convention, I mean, One of the things that made you look forward to the Democratic Convention is watching them be democrats, it's the greatest show in American politics.

FRANKEN: Well, no. The thing to look forward to now, if you're here is all the good parties.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANKEN: But, the fact is is that conventions have become really pretty much of a highly choreographed stage event. You pointed out that there will be a balloon drop, there will be all the demonstrations and support and that type of thing. What the democrats have to do is to keep a momentum going, a momentum of cohesion, as I said a moment ago, that isn't always present in the party. There are huge differences, as you know, in the various groups that make up this party, but as I said, they're united against one person, and that's George W. Bush.

CAFFERTY: CNN's Bob Franken reporting from Boston. Bring us clam chowder when it's over, will you, Bob?

Well, you won't go broke telling people the news they want to hear and that's one reason why a lot of U.S. journalism doesn't even pretend to play it straight down the middle anymore. People aren't shy about picking news that takes their side of an issue which is fine if you think a one-sided view of the world makes you a better citizen or if that's just what you want to do. That's okay, too.

My former CNN colleague, Frank Sesno, has been thinking about the impact of partisan news coverage. These days Frank's a professor of public policy at George Mason University in Washington, D.C.

Frank, nice to see you.

FRANK SESNO, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: Good to see you Jack, as always.

CAFFERTY: What's the difference between CNN verses the f-word network, as I like to call it and reading the "New York Times" or the "Wall Street Journal?" It's kind of the same deal, isn't it.

SESNO: Well, it's kind of the same deal, but it's not really the same deal at all. You know, it all -- what you see, Jack, depends on where you stand, OK? And that's really what this is all about and it's a battle royale within the community of journalism as whether the, sort of, old line values of, you know, two sources and check it out and just the facts are going to prevail, or whether we'll argue about everything, even the basic facts.

LISOVICZ: You know, we have seen this explosion, Frank, by the way, great to see -- it's Susan Lisovicz, here -- you know, this explosion of talk show hosts whether it's on radio or television, and sort of what we've seen in television is a niche aspect, just like we say in magazines. There use to be general circulation magazines like "Life" magazine and then it got very highly segmented. What's wrong with having a lot of choice for consumers in news?

SESNO: Choice is good and choice in new social security good, the voices, the merrier, I think we'd all agree with that. The danger is this -- the ability brought by radio and television, back in the '40s and '50s when this experiment first began, to sort of convene the nation, to have the fireside chat that FDR did, we'd have nothing to fear but fear itself; Kennedy's -- you know the torch is passed to a new generation.

Everybody was able to tune in, there was an ability, partly because technology limited it. There were just a few radio stations, television stations, what have you, that's gone now and so we've sliced and diced the audience into little itty bitty parts. We've taught them attention deficit disorder, and you have them as long as it takes to blurt out a sound bite and argue a point and so we've created what is called an "argument culture." That's what we live in.

ROMANS: Well, I wonder though, what came first, the argument culture or the polarized America or the polarized media? I mean, some would say that maybe the media is just catering to what the viewers want.

SESNO: I think they reflect and refract each other, actually. And I do think that the market works and it's one reason why there will, I believe, always be a strong place for responsible journalism that plays off of responsible journalistic rules.

Now we'll argue about what exactly those are, but we basically know what we're talking about. People like the Op-Ed page, they like the editorial page, they love to read it and hate it or whatever, but they still want to know information, and people are a lot smarter than those in the media give them credit for. So, I think the marketplace is going to work here.

CAFFERTY: Well, isn't -- and this goes with what you're saying, isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder, to a degree? I mean, the people that like the f-word network, will buy into the fact that it's, quote, "fair and balanced" and people that don't like the f-word network don't think they're "fair and balanced" at all. So, I mean, isn't it to a certain extent what you're looking for and when you find what you're looking for "ah-ha, they have it right."

SESNO: Yes, exactly. I think there's a very important thing that the f-word network, as you point out, Jack, has done. And that is, to show mainstream journalism if we can call it that, that they really were out of touch with people and there's some changing that needs to be done, there needs to be a broader diversity of voices and different level of connection with people and what they -- we can't just be this little group of folks inside the beltway or your great city of New York, talking to ourselves. We need to be talking to people more and we need to be more accountable as journalists, for what we do. LISOVICZ: You know Frank, beyond that -- you know, we're talking -- we've been talking more about the mainstream operations, but in the Internet age, there's an awful lot of stuff that goes on which really would not classify as your basic good reporting. Rumors that float around -- passed around and then go on the air one way or another and that's really -- that's really very dangerous, isn't it?

SESNO: I think their -- yes, and we better hope that people can see through it. And this is what I worry about. And I worry about with the respect to the Internet and with respect to these niche networks that you were talking about, the argument culture, all of that. That if the public loses the ability to just get the facts, if we can't even agree on the basic parameters of what's happening today, if we're going to argue over whether the sky is blue, partly cloudy, partly clear, we're in trouble because then we went be able to agree on the basic dimensions of our -- of the debate that defines us as a society and a democracy.

ROMANS: Frank, Christine here again, I wanted to ask you about this polarized -- this polarized viewership and how we were just talking a few weeks ago about this love affair with these documentaries, you know the Michael Moore movie and some...

SESNO: Yes, if you call it a documentary.

ROMANS: Right, exactly. Well, we were calling it a mock- umentary or a shock-umentary, but you know, the fact that some viewers think they're not getting enough from the television media, in particular, and they got to go sit for two hours and watch their point of view on the screen. What do you think about that?

SESNO: I think it's fine. I saw the thing the other day and I got to tell you that the most interesting thing to me was not the film, really, but the audience. I mean, this was not like a revival meeting in there. They were as loud in the theater as the movie off the screen. That tells me something about audience, it tells me somehting about the country, today. Look, let a thousand flowers bloom, let it all go out. Don't call it a documentary.

ROMANS: Right.

SESNO: Don't call it journalism, because it's not. That's were we get into trouble if we start confusing these things. It's like Oliver Stone, "JFK," was that historically correct? No way.

ROMANS: I know, but so many of these people are watching these things saying "we're not getting it from the media, so we have to -- Michael Moore and give us the truth."

SESNO: You're right.

ROMANS: You know, but wait, we are giving you the truth.

SESNO: You're right. Well, I think the media are giving the truth. Let -- let's also let that be a shot across the bow because I think that we in the media and television and broadcasting generally needs to give the public attention for an attention span and stay with something and drill down a little bit deeper because people are asking for that, too.

CAFFERTY: Frank Sesno, former colleague here at CNN, currently professor at George Mason University.

Frank, thanks for coming on, appreciate it.

SESNO: Pleasure as always.

CAFFERTY: All right. Coming up on IN THE MONEY, as we continue:

Demographic clout: We'll look at how Latino voters could change the course of race to the White House this November.

And buildings that communicate without saying a word: Find out how they work as we take you through a field guide to sprawl.

Plus, blind trust: See how you good you are at spotting a brand by nothing but a bottle. Some guys of the guys on the floor in this studio will pass this test 100 percent, guaranteed.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Competitors across the globe wish they could fill the shoes of Nike, this year's industry leader in the apparel category. The company sells its products throughout the U.S. and in about 200 other countries. And even though Nike ranks as the world's No. 1 shoemaker, these days, variety is the name of the game. The company now sells everything from yoga apparel to hockey gear to golf equipment. However, Nike has been slow to break into the world of non-team sports, such as skate boarding where consumers are typically anti-swoosh.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAFFERTY: A lot of time of money is being spent on the Latino vote in the race for the White House. Both parties are pitching hard in both English and Spanish, but will it be enough to tip the scales come November?

Here to look at that with us is Jorge Ramos who is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with Univision and the author of "The Latino Wave."

You know, the undecided voters are a precious few apparently; the country is as sharply divided going into this election as I can ever remember. Where does the Latino community stand or is it possible to characterize them as being in one camp or the other?

JORGE RAMOS, AUTHOR "THE LATINO WAVE": Well, traditionally Latinos tend to vote more for the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, but what's important in this year is that the Latino vote might decide who goes to the White House. The importance of the vote is defined by its ability to determine an election, despite the fact that Latinos are not the majority. And the argument goes like this: With a country divided politically between Bush and Kerry, polarized by the war, we have eight million Hispanics voters that will go to the polls on November the second, many of these voters live in very contested states, like Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada so the argument is that these eight million Hispanic voters will decide who wins the election.

LISOVICZ: OK. So, OK, you already mentioned that states like Florida where there is a huge Hispanic population are crucial to both camps. What's on the minds of Hispanics? Is there a No. 1 unifying issue that concerns them?

RAMOS: It's really interesting because a common misconception is that all Latinos are immigrants or that all Latinos only speak Spanish and that, therefore, Latinos might only be interested in issues like Cuba and Fidel Castro or immigration, but poll after poll shows the three most important issues for Latinos are jobs, education, and healthcare and there's a basis for this. First of all 300,000 Hispanics have lost their jobs in the last three years.

In terms of education, one in every three Hispanic students doesn't finish high school. And when it comes to healthcare, six out of ten Hispanic families do not have health insurance. So that's why we can see why Latinos think that jobs, education, and health care are the three most important issues for them.

ROMANS: You mentioned the Hispanic population generally votes democratic or leans democratic, but this week a couple of interesting developments. Ann Veneman of the Department of Agriculture announcing a special Mexican-American nutrition initiative and Elaine Chao, over at Labor announcing this special initiative to protect Mexican worker in this country and try to make sure that they are getting fair wages. Is this a perfect timing for a Bush administration push into a largely democratic base?

RAMOS: I think so, but it is not enough. This year, candidates have to go beyond saying a few words in Spanish; they have to go beyond what we call "sombrero and taco politics."

(LAUGHTER)

RAMOS: And really and truly address the specific concerns of the Hispanic community. It is not enough to bring a mariachi band and some tacos, they truly have to address and propose concrete solutions to a specific problem. And when it comes to immigration, for instance, President Bush has proposed a program but I have seen polls lately that show no support of the Hispanic community for such a proposed I guess (PH) worker's program, but I have seen polls lately that show no support of the Hispanic community for such a proposal, so definitely President Bush and the Republican Party, they have to go beyond those simple proposals and try to understand what really the Hispanic community really wants.

CAFFERTY: But, President Bush won the Hispanic vote in the last election, didn't he? RAMOS: No, no. That was not the case. Al Gore got 67 percent of the Hispanic vote, and President Bush got 31 percent. What's so interesting is that since Ronald Reagan, every single republican candidate who wins more than 30 percent of the Hispanic vote, wins the White House, so the challenge for President Bush to get, again, that 31 percent or a little bit more to win the White House. What happened was Florida, yes, President Bush won the Hispanic vote in Florida.

CAFFERTY: And Florida turned out to decide the election. Let me ask you about voter apathy in the Hispanic community. That's on of the great problems that cuts right across this country -- the electorate doesn't go to the polls. Is the Hispanic electorate, the voting population, any more energized about this election and are they any more likely to go and vote than the other segments of the population?

RAMOS: If the election will be decided by the war, maybe Latinos will go in higher numbers to the poll. A common misconception again, is that Latinos are not interested in politics. What happens is that one-third of all Latinos are under 18 years of age, therefore they cannot vote. Another third of Latinos are not U.S. Citizens, so they cannot vote. So, we have about 15 or 16 million Hispanics voters who can go to the polls and why many people believe that Latinos are not interested in politics or that they simply do not vote. The reality is completely different, either too young or simply not legal in this country.

LISOVICZ: So, what do they want to hear? Because the Democratic Convention now, just a few days away. What do they want to hear from Senator Kerry?

RAMOS: I think Latinos are tired by what I call the "Christopher Columbus syndrome," that we are being rediscovered every four years, in an election year.

(LAUGHTER)

CAFFERTY: That's funny.

RAMOS: That happens all the time. They say a few words in Spanish and then they forget about the Hispanic community for three more years. I think they want us a specific solutions to a specific problems. And again, they want to hear something about the jobs that they've lost, they want better schools for their children, they want healthcare and they want also to know why there's this perceptions that in the war in Iraq that more Latinos died in the first two month of the war than the rest of the population.

CAFFERTY: What a surprise that the politicians pander to the Latinos, just like they do to the rest of us.

RAMOS: Well, it might decide -- it might decide this election. I had the opportunity to talk to President Bush three years ago and told me that he believed that the Latino community decided the Florida election and therefore gave him the White House, and just about six weeks ago, I was in east L.A. talking with John Kerry after he read a speech in Spanish and told me, and I quote, "It's entirely possible that Latinos will decide the election." So, here we have President Bush and John Kerry believing that Latinos might decide this election and that's why they're spending -- I mean, that's why they're not only try to speak Spanish, but that's why they're spending so much money in Spanish-language advertising this year.

LISOVICZ: Well, we won't have the "Christopher Columbus syndrome" here. We're going to bring you back. Hopefully before the election day and hopefully you'll be able to -- you'll agree to come on "IN THE MONEY." Jorge Ramos who is a "Univision" anchor and author of "The Latino Wave."

Thanks so much for joining us.

RAMOS: Thank you.

LISOVICZ: Coming up after the break, think like a brewmiester: See if you can name that beer without checking the label. I have to go back to college for that. Or fun site of the week is just ahead.

Plus, the best defense money can't buy: See whether Martha Stewart's legal team could have done a better job of keeping their client out of jail.

And goosing the mouse: A lot of online retailers are having tougher time this year even though business isn't too bad. We'll tell you why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LISOVICZ: Now let's take a look at the week's top stories in our "Money Minute." Microsoft rocked the street by announcing a $30 billion stock buy back and one-time $32 billion dividend payout. The company says it wants to return some its massive cash horde to investors. They liked that a lot. Microsoft paid its first-ever dividend in March of last year.

Former New York Stock Exchange Chief Dick Grasso is responding to the lawsuit calling for the return of much of his pay package by counter suing the NYSE. Grasso says he's owd about $50 million in compensation and benefits. A spokesman for Grasso said any money he's awarded will go to charity.

And the pusher on the street corner is thinking about raising his prices. Well, that's a hard way of saying your daily Starbucks fix probably cost you more pretty soon. The coffee chain says rising dairy prices will likely force it to raise prices early next year. Starbucks also announced 44 percent earnings growth earlier this week.

ROMANS: A major beer merger brewing between two very famous names, but it's not a done deal yet. Earlier this week, Colorado's Adolph Coors and Canada's Molson agreed to a merger that would create a company with combined annual sales of $6 billion. But former Molson deputy chairman, Ian Molson, reportedly hopes to block the deal with a $4 billion offer of his own. It's been a mostly healthy year for Coors shares so far, but this merger and Chairman Pete Coors decision to run for the U.S. Senate this year, could shake things up at the company. Adolph Coors is our "Stock of the Week." And Susan, we were just talking about ticker's number "rky" you know, rocky.

LISOVICZ: Rocky Mountain -- high.

ROMANS: You know both of these companies, Molson and Coors, have such an amazing, I don't know, brand presence in their representative countries. Molson, I mean, what's more Canadian than Molson? And Adolph Coors, what's more -- what's more American, Colorado, Rocky than that? I wonder how it will go.

LISOVICZ: Right, I mean that's wonderful. They do have these, sort of, fabled brands and they're two family-owned big breweries, but on the other hand they're microscopic compared to Anheuser Busch, 50 percent of the market; SAB Miller, what a consolidation in the beer market, just like other industries and that's why these two decided that at least there was -- they were characteristics very much similar.

CAFFERTY: Well, the expectation too, it that they can save something north of $175 million a year out of consolidating these two because they're both geographically in the right place, I guess. But you mentioned they're both closely held corporations. Families in both of these control most of the stock and the families could end up queering this deal.

ROMANS: And an analyst even this week told me that if you have a merger that goes through, it still may be need to merge with somebody else to still compete with...

LISOVICZ: Like Heineken.

ROMANS: ...SAB Miller and Bud. You know, this might not even be enough. So, if there's a spoiler in here that could be trouble for RKY shares, if they think it's not going to happen.

LISOVICZ: And that spoiler would be the name of Ian Molson.

ROMANS: Ian Monson.

LISOVICZ: Yeah. Who's trying to finance his own deal.

ROMANS: All right.

LISOVICZ: Stay tuned.

ROMANS: Coming up on IN THE MONEY:

Hush your mouth: See if Martha Stewart would have gained more in court by saying less.

Plus, thinking outside the big box: We'll take you through a book that turn anyone into a sprawl watcher.

And label conscious: Find out how you rate when it's time to order a beer on looks alone. Our fun site of the week is on the way. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LISOVICZ: Time now for a little Monday morning quarterbacking in the Martha Stewart case. Last week, of course, Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison for lying to Federal investigators about her ImClone stock sale. Stewart's lawyers have already filed an appeal. But our next guest says Martha could have avoided this whole mess entirely if her legal team had coached her better both in and out of court. Robert Shapiro joins us today. He, of course, is a renowned criminal defense attorney whose clients have included O.J. Simpson and Darryl Strawberry. Welcome, great to see you.

ROBERT SHAPIRO, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Very nice to be with you this morning.

LISOVICZ: Martha Stewart finally really talked about the case right after the sentencing, calling it a small personal matter. Well, she was the CEO of a public company and on the board of directors at the New York Stock Exchange. And not telling the truth to Federal authorities is a felony, and she was convicted of that. Now, this points something that you say, which is one of the first rules, is don't talk to the authorities in the first place. Have people like you do that.

SHAPIRO: Well, first let me say that I don't want to be critical of Martha's lawyers or the tactics that were used, because I don't like to be second-guessed. It's much easier to sit here after a verdict and critique something that went on. But from my point of view, I think that her stay away in the Federal away penitentiary for four to five months could have been easily avoided. I think one of the pitfalls people have when they're engaged in high profile white collar defense is that they are somewhat intimidated by the clients.

The clients are powerful. The clients are rich. The clients are competitive and used to getting their own way. And most people in those positions believe they can talk their way around things or explain things. And no matter how good you are, that when the Federal government is looking at something that you may have done, their resources, their techniques and their ability to get financial records and background is so enormous that the risk that you're taking is too great. So, my rule is plain and simple. When anyone wants to talk to my client, the answer is, keep your mouth shut.

LISOVICZ: Well, the irony is --

SHAPIRO: I'll do the talking.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN ANCHOR, "IN THE MONEY": The irony is that she mentioned she'd like to write a book for people in her situation to give them pointers on how to deal with it. Well, it would be a how not to do book, because it looks like she did everything wrong. She didn't get on the stand, yet she turned around and was out there talking outside of the courtroom, quite prolifically. What do you think about that?

SHAPIRO: You know, you make a very, very good point. One of the things we've seen with the corporate indictments of people in high profile public places is that those who do take the witness stand in their own defense are more likely to be acquitted than those who remain silent and try to have a lawyer convince the jury that they were just not dumb enough to do what they're accused of doing. And that obviously didn't play well with this jury.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR, "IN THE MONEY": Put yourself in the attorney's mind that has to decide whether or not to put her on the stand. On the one hand she's the things you describe. She's much beloved, she's admired, she's respected, she's well known. On the other hand there are a lot of people in the country that don't like her for whatever the reason. Who do you assess the odds on whether it's a win or lose to put somebody like Martha Stewart on the witness stand?

SHAPIRO: You know, it's the most difficult decision an attorney has to make. First you have to be able to gauge, has the prosecution proven their case? Well, in almost all cases with white collar crime, as I said, the resources of the Federal government and the ability of their prosecutors is much greater than in a state case and so, the likelihood is that they are going to be able to prove a white collar case. That being said, the defense best position generally is, if you have a public figure that's used to talking, people want to hear from that person. It's natural, even though the jury is instructed that you can't consider the fact that Martha Stewart in this case didn't take the witness stand, people still do. And they really want to hear what somebody on trial has to say for themselves.

LISOVICZ: You know, Bob, not only is Martha Stewart used to talking, she's used to having her own way. She's a self-made woman. She was a billionaire, certainly still very wealthy, and has done everything, for the most part, in her business pretty successfully. Do you find when you have clients who are powerful and very wealthy that sometimes they don't listen, that, in fact, there is -- there is a tension there between the clients and the counsel?

SHAPIRO: You have made the crucial point of these white collar cases. Not only do some people not want to listen, one of the other problems is they want to get so many different opinions from so many other people, rather than relying on the person that they literally have entrusted their life to. And I think that the Martha Stewart case now, by hindsight obviously, would have been much better for her had the matter been resolved early on, with what may or may not have been a technical violation, but simply to admitting to a technical violation, paying a disgorgement or a small fine and explaining it, as a technical violation and it's a one-day story. Now it's a three-year story.

CAFFERTY: I've got 30 seconds. What did you make of the sentence?

SHAPIRO: The sentence was the lowest the judge could give under the Federal guidelines, which judges universally hate. That is, they have very little discretion. That was the lowest the judge could have given. She could have gone up to 16 months. But that was it. The judge had no other options. I thought the sentence was the lowest the judge could give, but if there were no guidelines, it should have been a case for probation.

LISOVICZ: I've got less than 30 seconds. Is she going to win on appeal, yes or no?

SHAPIRO: I think she has a very good chance on one issue on appeal and that is that she was convicted of lying about and covering up something that most likely was not even a crime.

LISOVICZ: Robert Shapiro, criminal defense attorney joining us from Los Angeles. Thanks so much for your insight.

SHAPIRO: You're welcome. Good to be with you this morning.

LISOVICZ: We're not going anywhere, so hang around while we take a break. Coming up on "In the Money," the space race. Sprawl is growing fast and now it even has its own language. Learn how to talk the talk from the big box to litter on a stick.

Also ahead, if the cash register rings in cyberspace, does it make a sound? Found out why some top e-tailors aren't thriving like they used to.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROMANS: Truck City, Privatopia, Snout House. Sound like towns in some futuristic video game? Not quite. These are terms developers and designers use to describe suburban building patterns right now, part of the modern phenomenon known as urban sprawl. Joining us today is Dolores Hayden. She's the author of "A Field Guide to Sprawl." She's also professor of architecture and American studies at Yale University. Dolores, welcome to the program. In the last couple of months I've been in Davenport, Iowa. I've been in -- about 20 miles north of Sacramento and I've been in the northern D.C. suburbs and I'm telling you right now, in any of those places if I didn't know where I was, it could be the same place.

DOLORES HAYDEN, "A FIELD GUIDE TO SPRAWL": Well, many Americans find that they're lost when they're driving and confused by tracks, strips, malls, the landscapes that we've created are very, very, very confusing. And that's one reason why I decided that it was time to write "A Field Guide to Sprawl." I've identified 51 building patterns and they're all illustrated with aerial photographs by Jim Rourke (ph) so the people can flip through this field guide and get a sense of where they are.

LISOVICZ: Dolores I was born and bred in the great state of New Jersey. We have long known what sprawl is like. Ever since I was a little girl when the beautiful nursery in town with the flowers and the trees was bulldozed over for another strip mall. Let's get to some of your -- some of your unique names. Let's start with a category killer. What is that?

HAYDEN: Category killer is slang for a retail operation which attempts to dominate a category, such as hardware or lumber or books, and category killer is usually a big box store.

LISOVICZ: Like Home Depot and Gap and Borders?

HAYDEN: Exactly, exactly.

ROMANS: What about logo building?

HAYDEN: Logo building is a building that's meant to be instantly recognizable from far away on the highway.

ROMANS: I'm thinking McDonald's.

HAYDEN: Yes, or it could be a branch bank. It could be a fast lube place. Many, many brands try to make their buildings identical.

ROMANS: That's why every place looks the same. You go some place to see the strip of the Best Buy, the Circuit City and then you know that you're going to have a McDonald's and if you're in the Midwest, you're going to have a Hardees and you're going to have a Kentucky Fried Chicken two blocks to the left almost.

CAFFERTY: So what's wrong with that?

ROMANS: Well, it's just not --

CAFFERTY: Some of us like a certain predictability in our lives. You go into a strange town. You find that one piece of highway leading into town. You know you can get gas. You can find a Holiday Inn. You can get something to eat. It's either Taco Bell or McDonald's or -- I mean, what's wrong with that?

ROMANS: What about a handshake with the community?

CAFFERTY: I don't want a handshake with the community.

ROMANS: Wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

CAFFERTY: I want a room, a tank of gas and something to eat. I'll shake hands tomorrow after I get a little sleep.

ROMANS: Where is your individuality in the American countryside? Jack I'm surprised at you.

LISOVICZ: Dolores help us out.

HAYDEN: Well, places are unique and places have wonderful historic buildings that are frequently at a scale best suited to pedestrians. Once you start on the logo buildings and the category killers, you're at the scale of cars and trucks. And frequently people feel very lost in those environments once they get out of the car. It's very difficult to stick one of those highway environments onto a traditional town of an attractive kind and find that the town survives. The businesses on the highway tend to kill the smaller stores, the pharmacies, the bookstores inside those towns. And then the towns are struggling to keep their shape. LISOVICZ: Dolores, as much as I love the names that you have in your guide to sprawl like Privatopia and alligator, and ball pork, there's much more serious issue here. And one that's getting more serious attention in state legislatures all over the country, including my own, New Jersey.

HAYDEN: New Jersey has declared war on sprawl and tried to develop state land use policies, which will strengthen older cities and older suburbs in existing towns and stop rapid growth in areas that are green field areas. And I think that's a good thing that many, many other states should emulate. Because when we have constant unregulated new growth, frequently the places that we built a generation or two generations ago are left to fall down.

ROMANS: Dolores, I have a prediction. I think that what's happening in California with Wal-Mart is sort of a snapback against this. I think that communities are starting to say they don't want the big box. They don't want the funny water runoff. They decided they want nice, little main streets again. Do you think there could be maybe a retro movement in community planning?

HAYDEN: I think the important thing is to do careful land use and energy conservation and public transportation wherever possible rather than having unregulated growth, unregulated use of the maximum amount of energy and a sort of careless throwaway attitude.

CAFFERTY: Dolores, forgive me for interrupting, we're going to lose the satellite. I want to thank you before you disappear off the screen. Dolores Hayden, "Field Guide to Sprawl." Thanks for being with us. I appreciate it.

HAYDEN: Thanks for having me.

CAFFERTY: All right. Don't go getting chummy with the remote. We have more just ahead for you. Coming up, stores that let you shop without ever leaving your seat. Online retailing is convenient but it's having a tough year anyway. We're going to take a look at why. Certainly not my wife. She supports those places. And the web is good for more than just buying stuff. For example you can send us an e-mail. Give us your thoughts on sprawl, inthemoneycnn.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAFFERTY: Online retailers Amazon and eBay helped to lead the big market rally a year ago. But this year things are not so good for the e-tailers. Web master Allen Wastler has more on that and the fun site of the week which has something to do with bottles of beer on the wall. How you doing?

ALLEN WASTLER, CNNMONEY.COM: Kind of interesting about the Internet retailers, right? They sort of charged to the end of last year, beginning of this year everybody's saying they're back. It's a happening thing and the idea was they sort of cater to an audience which is maybe a little more well-to-do, everybody's surfing the net and looking to do some good things.

CAFFERTY: Or lazy because they don't have to go anywhere.

WASTLER: You saw some ideas pop up that were interesting, Blue Nile, jewelry type place and everybody had these high hopes. Then all of a sudden this week the results came in and sort of flattening out. Sort of guess what, they sell stuff just like other retailers sell stuff. So when the economy starts going -- it weakens. And there's a line of reasoning that perhaps there's a little bit more susceptible because if you're buying stuff on the Internet you're using a credit card. If you're in an environment where interest rates are going up and you've already amassed enough personal debt, all of a sudden you're likely to retreat on the credit card purchases a little more. You go to your Wal-Mart or Target, you can pay cash if you want to put yourself on a little budget type action.

ROMANS: America on a budget? That's a news flash.

WASTLER: It could start to happen.

LISOVICZ: Not using plastic, that's another news flash.

WASTLER: $8400 per family in terms of debt, credit card debt. You need to trim that.

CAFFERTY: They're not going anywhere though, right, eBay and Amazon.

WASTLER: No, they got solid results (INAUDIBLE) guided down. Part of it is the excitement factor, too. People bid them up, bid them up, bid them up.

ROMANS: The stocks have already done so well that they almost have to just blow away expectations to sustain it.

WASTLER: Exactly. They've got to sort of pull back a little bit and get back down to more moderate levels.

CAFFERTY: Let's move on to happy hour.

WASTLER: Let's go to happy hour, OK. I know you were talking about the beer emergent (ph) stuff before, right.

LISOVICZ: Christine and I are ready to play.

WASTLER: What you got to do is you got to figure out what brand of beer --

LISOVICZ: Heineken is in the middle.

WASTLER: Susan jumps out there with Heineken in the middle.

LISOVICZ: Christine.

ROMANS: On the left I think -- the right looks like Bud Light to me. And the left looks like it might be some kind of an MGD, Miller Genuine Draft.

CAFFERTY: Michelob.

ROMANS: Michelob.

WASTLER: Very good, Jack.

CAFFERTY: Not bad for a guy who quit drinking 15 years ago, right?

WASTLER: Now there's nine other bottles on the site that people can go check out and figure out.

LISOVICZ: You don't want to -- you don't want us to end on a winning streak?

WASTLER: It's all a positive note but there you go.

CAFFERTY: Thanks, Allen. Coming up next on "In the Money," time to hear from you as we read some of your e-mails we got in the past week. You can send us an e-mail if you're so inclined right this very minute. We're at inthemoney@cnn.com. Write to use and unburden yourself.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAFFERTY: It is time now to read your answers to our question about whether you think America is more divided now than it was 30 years ago.

Maurine in Yorbalinda, California writes, "30 years ago this nation was being ripped apart by Vietnam, Watergate, several political assasinations, hippies, yippies, zippies, women's lib, and the list goes on and on. I don't think it's possible for America to be more divided now than it was then. We are still polarized over some of the same issues, but there aren't as many splinter groups today."

Carol from Toronto, Canada wrote this, "your country does appear more divided than ever, religiously. And that leads to greater political differences. Religion is very emotional and it drives more people to vote than any other issue. Without religion, Republican candidates would never get any votes in poor areas, and Democrats would do better in rural states."

And Howard sums it all up this way. One sentence. "Yes, we are more divided now, there are a lot more dummies."

Thank you Howard for that intellectual response to our question.

Next week's email question is as follows: "What's the best reason to watch or not watch the Democratic National Convention up in Boston this week?" You can send your answers at inthemoney@cnn.com.

And you should also visit our show page at money.com/inthemoney, which is where you'll find the address of our fun site of the week.

Thank you for joining us for this edition of IN THE MONEY. My thanks to CNN correspondent, Susan Lisovicz, Christine Romans, whose in this week for Andy Serwer, and Money.com managing editor, Allen Wastler.

Join us next week, Saturday at 1:00, Sunday at 3:00 for 2 more fine editions of this tiny little program. Or you can watch Andy Serwer and me all week long on "AMERICAN MORNING" beginning at 7:00 Eastern.

Wherever, hope to see you soon. Thanks for today.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


CNN US
On CNN TV E-mail Services CNN Mobile CNN AvantGo CNNtext Ad info Preferences
SEARCH
   The Web    CNN.com     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.